It was a vast boat that saved two of each animal and a handful of humans from a catastrophic flood.

But forget all those images of a long vessel with a pointy bow -- the original Noah's Ark, new research suggests, was round.

A recently deciphered 4,000-year-old clay tablet from ancient Mesopotamia -- modern-day Iraq -- reveals striking new details about the roots of the Old Testament tale of Noah. It tells a similar story, complete with detailed instructions for building a giant round vessel known as a coracle -- as well as the key instruction that animals should enter "two by two."

The tablet went on display at the British Museum on Friday, and soon engineers will follow the ancient instructions to see whether the vessel could actually have sailed.

It's also the subject of a new book, "The Ark Before Noah," by Irving Finkel, the museum's assistant keeper of the Middle East and the man who translated the tablet.

Finkel got hold of it a few years ago, when a man brought in a damaged tablet his father had acquired in the Middle East after World War II. It was light brown, about the size of a mobile phone and covered in the jagged cuneiform script of the ancient Mesopotamians.

It turned out, Finkel said Friday, to be "one of the most important human documents ever discovered."

"It was really a heart-stopping moment -- the discovery that the boat was to be a round boat," said Finkel, who sports a long gray beard, a ponytail and boundless enthusiasm for his subject. "That was a real surprise."

And yet, Finkel said, a round boat makes sense. Coracles were widely used as river taxis in ancient Iraq and are perfectly designed to bob along on raging floodwaters.

Other experts said Finkel wasn't simply indulging in book-promotion hype. David Owen, professor of ancient Near Eastern studies at Cornell University, said the British Museum curator had made "an extraordinary discovery."

Elizabeth Stone, an expert on the antiquities of ancient Mesopotamia at New York's Stony Brook University, said it made sense that ancient Mesopotamians would depict their mythological ark as round.

"People are going to envision the boat however people envision boats where they are," she said. "Coracles are not unusual things to have had in Mesopotamia."

The tablet records a Mesopotamian god's instructions for building a giant vessel -- two-thirds the size of a soccer field in area -- made of rope, reinforced with wooden ribs and coated in bitumen.

Finkel said that on paper (or stone) the boat-building orders appear sound, but he doesn't yet know whether it would have floated. A television documentary due to be broadcast later this year will follow attempts to build the ark according to the ancient manual.

The flood story recurs in later Mesopotamian writings including the "Epic of Gilgamesh." These versions lack the technical instructions -- cut out, Finkel believes, because they got in the way of the storytelling.

"It would be like a Bond movie where instead of having this great sexy red car that comes on, somebody starts to tell you about how many horsepower it's got and the pressure of the tires and the capacity of the boot (trunk)," he said. "No one cares about that. They want the car chase."

Finkel is aware his discovery may cause consternation among believers in the Biblical story. When 19th-century British Museum scholars first learned from cuneiform tablets that the Babylonians had a flood myth, they were disturbed by its striking similarities to the story of Noah.

"Already in 1872 people were writing about it in a worried way -- What does it mean that Holy Writ appears on this piece of Weetabix?" he joked, referring to a cereal similar in shape to the tablet.

Finkel has no doubts.

"I'm sure the story of the flood and a boat to rescue life is a Babylonian invention," he said.

He believes the tale was likely passed on to the Jews during their exile in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. And he doesn't think the tablet provides evidence the ark described in the Bible existed. He said it's more likely that a devastating real flood made its way into folk memory, and has remained there ever since.

"I don't think the ark existed -- but a lot of people do," he said. "It doesn't really matter. The Biblical version is a thing of itself and it has a vitality forever.

"The idea that floods are caused by sin is happily still alive among us," he added, pointing out a local councilor in England who made headlines recently for saying Britain's recent storms were caused by the legalization of gay marriage.

"Had I known it, it would have gone in the preface of the book," Finkel said.

I'll continue to point out how very little in the Bible is unique, in fact I'll continue to point out just how much is "taken" from earlier belief systems. It is a wonderfully crafted piece of literature when taken as a stand-alone text, but taken in context it becomes pretty clear that it is not the "inspired" word of God, but rather a Jewish retelling of much older and established stories from previous religions.

I wonder if lots of false claims about finding this "round ark" will start to surface. I doubt it, unless the polytheistic belief system of the Mesopotamians suddenly come back in vogue...

BTW - if you prefer the Babylonian's, you might also be interested in the story of Atra-Hasis. Then again, we have Deucalion in Greek mythology, the great flood of Hindu mythology, the Mayans had a pretty good flood story as well if you want to keep it closer to home as did many indigenous tribes in the Americas. They pretty much follow the same story, a great flood sent by the gods to cleanse the world, and a hero figure (like Noah) who ensures the proper rebirth occurs.

Because you feel threatened by the bible, Jews and/or Christians and have a desire to demean faiths that are different from your own? (Or are you just lashing out at Christians since you got schooled on the word 'Nepotism'? )

Pablo wrote:

... in fact I'll continue to point out just how much is "taken" from earlier belief systems... taken in context it becomes pretty clear that it is not the "inspired" word of God, but rather a Jewish retelling of much older and established stories from previous religions.

I don't know why you feel stories that are passed on from one generation to the next are proof that they are not the inspired word of God. As God is eternal, it makes sense that his word predates the bible.

While I have completely accepted Christianity, I often wonder, 'Did God create one religion and man in his ultimate fallibility divide it into hundreds or thousands of separate religions, or did God, knowing man's stubborn, independent and everlasting fallibility, develop a thousand different religions, and He has another thousand waiting if needed?'

_________________Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.

January 28th, 2014, 4:30 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9596Location: Dallas

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

TruckinMack wrote:

Pablo wrote:

I'll continue to point out how very little in the Bible is unique...

Because you feel threatened by the bible, Jews and/or Christians and have a desire to demean faiths that are different from your own? (Or are you just lashing out at Christians since you got schooled on the word 'Nepotism'? )

Who wouldn't feel threatened at least to some point by the Bible and religion in general? Entire cultures have been systematically wiped off the planet because of their different belief systems. Give any person a reason "bigger than themselves" and they can justify doing unspeakable things. History has proven this true over and over again. Just look at how Jews/Christians look at Muslims for example, these worship/faith systems create an environment of mistrust in each other. Have you heard of the "Crusades"? Those were lead by a Pope. Then again, I'm sure if you tried practicing Wicca in a Christian based early New England area you would understand the threat. Or perhaps if you were African American in the Southern US dealing with a White Christian America group known as the KKK. Or perhaps, you were a simple Mayan or Aztec living just south of the border when Christian's from Spain brought "Jesus" to you. And I don't mean to pick on Christian's, it is just part of the dominant culture in our part of the globe but the same issue can pretty much be applied to any religion. Heck, it often applies to offshoots of the same basic faith system, just ask the folks in Ireland.

TruckinMack wrote:

Pablo wrote:

... in fact I'll continue to point out just how much is "taken" from earlier belief systems... taken in context it becomes pretty clear that it is not the "inspired" word of God, but rather a Jewish retelling of much older and established stories from previous religions.

I don't know why you feel stories that are passed on from one generation to the next are proof that they are not the inspired word of God. As God is eternal, it makes sense that his word predates the bible.

While I have completely accepted Christianity, I often wonder, 'Did God create one religion and man in his ultimate fallibility divide it into hundreds or thousands of separate religions, or did God, knowing man's stubborn, independent and everlasting fallibility, develop a thousand different religions, and He has another thousand waiting if needed?'

God didn't create religion (unless you really think "he" is that egotistical), man did and continues to do so including more recent incarnations including Scientology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If there was one "true God" and he wanted to have a "relationship" with us, why create so many other religions/distractions from the truth? Simple, he wouldn't.

I'm glad you have "completely accepted Christianity", I'm curious as to the process you must have gone through to "completely" rule out every other faith on the planet.

Actually, you have me off topic however so let me get back on point. I continue to point out how the Bible was "written" from a historical perspective. In reality, you don't have to be a believer in the Bible to believe in "God". They are mutually exclusive, although most believers will try to tie the two together exclusively to fit their preferred belief.

I would like to create enough of a curiosity for those of you who are believers to really discover where the Bible came from. I have yet to find a version that has footnotes that detail from where each story is really rooted. Let's face it, if you truly go down this path it is as obvious as the nose on your face that the Bible is not an original work, but rather reworks of previous incarnations of non-Christian religious text passed off as "inspired" by God and implied as being unique to the Christian faith. It's the Jewish version of what the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Hindu, and many others from that particular area on Earth had developed over many years of various practices of worship, repackaged for Christians.

Wouldn't the word of the "Creator" be creative, unique and stand the test of time?

Imagine taking a movie (a great movie, even Oscar worthy), then making a sequel, then a sequel of that sequel, then a sequel of that sequel, multiple by some power of 10+ in terms of sequels over thousands of years. Now imagine a huge % of the population putting their full faith and acceptance of that remade movie - now you are starting to understand what it is like to follow the Bible as "gospel". Perhaps we will all worship "Oz", many incarnations later, in a few thousand years. Like me, at that point, you wouldn't feel threatened at all by the story of Oz, but you might feel threatened because everyone worships Munchkins and because you stand over 5'9" you are labeled as a heathen, evil to the core, someone not to be trusted. If you look back at history and see that anybody over 5'9" has been persecuted you might be pretty damn smart to recognize a threat. I mean, 80%+ of the population completely accepts Oz, the other 20% surely must be wrong and be dealt with like the "wicked witches" they obviously are.

I'm not sure that this even qualifies as an epiphany. More the ramblings of someone trying to make a point and not quite succeeding.

_________________Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.

January 28th, 2014, 7:08 pm

njroar

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 2841

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

So the original noah story takes place in Genesis... everyone is wiped out and then people defended from Noah and his children... Long after comes Babylon where the Jews eventually end up and they learn the story... How in that timeline does it now still happen? The written document is 4k years old. They say the jews were in Babylon 6bc, so 2020 years ago..which leaves 1080 years for history to happen. You do realize Noah was long before they were called Jews?

I understand your point, but I think you overlooked the timeline that was described in the article. They try to make it seem like it's a completely different story because the Jews didn't come under captivity in Babylon until 6bc. He says he believes a flood happened and it stuck in everyone's mind..I think he's not a good historian if he thinks all Jews came from the Line of Noah. Abraham came from Noah, but so did all the other nations in that area. He also isn't good with numbers because nothing said in this article would put it ahead of the timeline of where the Ark supposedly happened. It's like a false equivalent that because the Jews were in Babylonia in 6bc, that they learned the story there... Ok, where does that put the ark before Noah? Noah wasn't 6bc.

And yes, it's an extraordinary discovery, but this is about hyping a book, nothing more.

So the original noah story takes place in Genesis... everyone is wiped out and then people defended from Noah and his children... Long after comes Babylon where the Jews eventually end up and they learn the story... How in that timeline does it now still happen? The written document is 4k years old. They say the jews were in Babylon 6bc, so 2020 years ago..which leaves 1080 years for history to happen. You do realize Noah was long before they were called Jews?

I understand your point, but I think you overlooked the timeline that was described in the article. They try to make it seem like it's a completely different story because the Jews didn't come under captivity in Babylon until 6bc. He says he believes a flood happened and it stuck in everyone's mind..I think he's not a good historian if he thinks all Jews came from the Line of Noah. Abraham came from Noah, but so did all the other nations in that area. He also isn't good with numbers because nothing said in this article would put it ahead of the timeline of where the Ark supposedly happened. It's like a false equivalent that because the Jews were in Babylonia in 6bc, that they learned the story there... Ok, where does that put the ark before Noah? Noah wasn't 6bc.

And yes, it's an extraordinary discovery, but this is about hyping a book, nothing more.

Noah is irrelevant to this guy. He doesn't believe in the Noah story at all. He didn't find the story of Noah's Ark, he found a story very similar to it on a tablet that predates the bible. Also he never said the story predates the timeline set in the bible, the article is about the fact that the tablet predates the bible. The bible wasn't written before the tablet and he is proposing that since this story was written before the bible in an area where the jews were known to inhabit that it's possible they developed the Noah story from this story.

January 29th, 2014, 1:48 am

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2862

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

It's a waste of time to debate fairy tales.

Sly constantly throws around Rules for Radicals references even though he really has no idea what he's talking about.

But I actually try to apply the book's teachings to religion. That is to say, if you want to wipe out religion, you have to ridicule it. Anytime someone references religious beliefs, just point out how absurd they are. Make it so no person who wants to be taken seriously could express religious beliefs -- the second they do, they'll be laughed at and dismissed as a crank. Then you will see it go away.

So to go off that, whether or not the story of Noah was plagiarized is irrelevant. The larger point is that you actually believe it, you are an idiot. It has more holes than Swiss cheese and can't possibly be believed by any thinking person. Two of every animal on a boat? How did Noah and his family possibly care for the animals? What did they eat once they landed? How come the polar ice caps show no evidence of a global flood? etc. etc.

January 29th, 2014, 9:28 am

TruckinMack

Lionbacker Rehab Guru

Joined: January 26th, 2006, 9:08 pmPosts: 1232

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

Blueskies wrote:

Sly constantly throws around Rules for Radicals references even though he really has no idea what he's talking about.

That single sentence includes parts of RULE 2: Never go outside the expertise of your people.RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Blueskies wrote:

That is to say, if you want to wipe out religion, you have to ridicule it.

Obviously RULE 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

Blueskies wrote:

The larger point is that (if) you actually believe it, you are an idiot.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. (Attack, attack, attack.)

Gosh, why would Sly think you are an adherent of Alinsky's rules?

Atheists, identical to extremists of every faith. We know best. Other faiths must be destroyed. Death to the infidels...

And most importantly, 'Life started from dirt. It happened once, a long time ago and never happened again.' This is our faith. (No, wait we don't have a faith.) This is our belief. (No, wait, that sounds like faith.) This is our knowledge. We know it is true and anyone who disagrees has cooties.

Edited: That last bit about happening once a long time ago and never happened again sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton. She made $100,000 (well, $90,000 plus her initial investment of $10,000) on cattle futures. It was so easy, she never tried doing it again.

_________________Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.

January 29th, 2014, 10:28 am

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2862

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

Quote:

Gosh, why would Sly think you are an adherent of Alinsky's rules?

That wasn't my point. I admitted that I adhere to his rules -- it's really a great, under-appreciated book.

As to the rest of your post: The thing about the true believers is that they can never really grasp atheism. They are so arrogant, and so self-assured, that they can't possibly accept "we have no clue."

There's some evidence of abiogenesis -- scientists have shown that, under certain conditions, which we believe were similar to ancient earth (the planet has changed much in the last 4 billion years), life-like molecules will spontaneously form. Based on this, it's projected that life itself could arise spontaneously. And that's not true about the one-time only thing -- the current theory is that life may have arisen several times.

But maybe not. Who knows. It might be (and probably is) totally wrong. That's the great thing about skepticism and the scientific method -- it's interested in finding the objective truth, not clinging on to dogma.

Unfortunately, people are so terrified of the unknown that they'll believe a bunch of nonsense. Some believe it so deeply that they'll wage wars and fly buildings into planes. That's why I think religion should be wiped out -- it is a blight on our species and holds us back.

January 29th, 2014, 11:17 am

TruckinMack

Lionbacker Rehab Guru

Joined: January 26th, 2006, 9:08 pmPosts: 1232

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

Gosh, why would Sly think you are an adherent of Alinsky's rules?

That wasn't my point. I admitted that I adhere to his rules -- it's really a great, under-appreciated book

I don't know that it was a 'great book', but he has great rules for political warfare. Conservatives should adopt them and use them often.

Blueskies wrote:

The thing about the true believers is that they can never really grasp atheism. They are so arrogant, and so self-assured, that they can't possibly accept "we have no clue."

OMG, stop. I'm laughing so hard I'm peeing myself. As a true believer in Atheism you cannot grasp the weakness of your faith. You cannot even grasp that it is a faith. You are so arrogant and self assured that you have no clue. (Well said!)

Blueskies wrote:

There's some evidence of abiogenesis -- scientists have shown that, under certain conditions, which we believe were similar to ancient earth (the planet has changed much in the last 4 billion years), life-like molecules will spontaneously form.

To quote Lana Kane, 'Nooope.' I've seen the studies where they add Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules and get unstable protein chains of CHO. OK, if you add chocolate chips, flour and eggs you will get cookies. Unstable protein chains are just that. CHO crammed together forming temporary chemical bonds. (Wow. Stop the presses. We've proved life.)

Blueskies wrote:

Based on this (incredibly weak experiment), it's projected (in an incredibly weaker premise) that life itself could arise spontaneously.

Leading to the even weaker and less credible current theory

Quote:

...that life may have arisen several times.

Blueskies wrote:

But maybe not. Who knows. It might be (and probably is) totally wrong. That's the great thing about skepticism and the scientific method -- it's interested in finding the objective truth...

Epiphany? Truism? Either way we have common ground.

Blueskies wrote:

...not clinging on to dogma.

And then the dogmatic calls the kettle black.

Blueskies wrote:

Unfortunately, people are so terrified of the unknown that they'll believe a bunch of nonsense.

Wait are you talking about Theists or Atheists?

Blueskies wrote:

Some believe it so deeply that they'll wage wars and fly buildings into planes.

While Mao and Stalin are great examples of Atheism unchained, I get a bigger chuckle out of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, notorious Atheist murdered by her Atheist office manager. Atheists, ever pointing the finger at the flaws in other faiths while never having the honor or decency to examine their own faith under the same light.

Blueskies wrote:

That's why I think religion should be wiped out -- it is a blight on our species and holds us back.

Said the Atheist zealot who thinks his faith is so far superior to everyone else's that their religion should be wiped out. 'Death to the Infidel's religion!' (Interestingly you also wanted Sly banned from Lionbacker. I'll give this to you Atheists, your hypocrisy is consistent.) This section edited by TruckinMack

_________________Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.

Last edited by TruckinMack on January 29th, 2014, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

January 29th, 2014, 12:01 pm

njroar

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 2841

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

Blue, While I understand the belief in science, remember that the scientific method requires reproduction of events to prove it. So while even I believe evolution has it's strong points, the majority of the dogma behind it is untestable and relies on faith to believe that it happened. There are so many gaps in the fossil record (and I know that fossils are very rare due to the conditions needed) and species are so similar genetically that there is no scientific proof that species changed from one to the other but it's a belief. A pig is closer to a human than a fetus is, but it's still a human fetus... We are 99% genetically similar to mice, yet we're 95% similar to one another.

I also laugh when science calls molecules life, but won't recognize a fetus because it can't sustain itself without assistance... just like those molecules can't. But that's crazy thinking also right?

You can call everyone idiots, but it's bigotry plain and simple. Refusing to believe there might be ideas out there that you disagree with is the very definition. I'm very supportive of science, but just because it falls under the umbrella of science doesn't mean there isn't a lot of faith based belief involved. Much as a lot of what falls under the umbrella of religion isn't popular or even right. Doesn't mean I can't be respectful of those ideas. Be disrespectful all you want, but it won't change me still just smiling back at you.

January 29th, 2014, 12:38 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2862

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

Ugh, too much stupid. Not gonna waste anymore time. Just a few things:

-No, atheism is not faith. Saying that just demonstrates you have no idea what the word even means. Atheism is the default position, and in some ways you're an atheist too. For example, do you believe in Zeus? How about Thor? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You don't believe in any of these things because they are obviously absurd. You don't define your self as having "faith in the nonexistence of Zeus" you just don't believe. In that way, you are also an atheist. People like myself just extend our non-belief to the modern deities.

-Evolution has tons of supporting evidence, and species have been show to shift from one to another one over time. Obviously, you're ignorant on this topic, because no one brought up evolution -- abiogensis and evolution are completely different things. Related, but not the same whatsoever. If you want proof of evolution, just spend some time reading the hundreds of articles written by scientists on Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/). Trying to debate it is a waste of time. It's a widely accepted fact, and has more supporting evidence than germ theory

EDIT: Oh, and to Mack -- I never said religious people should be exterminated, that's crazy. I said religions should be. I don't think I'll see it in my life time, but I think we're well on the way. Maybe in a 150 years or so -- one can hope. The Internet has done much good in exposing religion's lies.

January 29th, 2014, 3:12 pm

TruckinMack

Lionbacker Rehab Guru

Joined: January 26th, 2006, 9:08 pmPosts: 1232

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

Blueskies wrote:

Ugh, too much stupid. Not gonna waste anymore time.

And then you did.

Blueskies wrote:

No, atheism is not faith. Saying that just demonstrates you have no idea what the word even means. Atheism is the default position...

'My faith is not a faith, it's a default position.' This is comedy gold.

Blueskies wrote:

and in some ways you're an atheist too. For example, do you believe in Zeus? How about Thor? ... In that way, you are also an atheist. People like myself just extend our non-belief to the modern deities.

Not only are you defining your faith as not a faith, you are defining everyone else's faith as part Atheist because they don't have faith in every religion known to man. I guess not believing in Atheism makes me an Atheist, too. This is seriously funny s--t.

Blueskies wrote:

Evolution has tons of supporting evidence, and species have been show to shift from one to another one over time. Obviously, you're ignorant on this topic, because no one brought up evolution.

Personally, I've no qualm with evolution. God made man from the earth. How He did that I've no idea. He could've evolved him. He could have done it differently. I don't have a horse in this race.

Blueskies wrote:

EDIT: Oh, and to Mack -- I never said religious people should be exterminated, that's crazy. I said religions should be.

My apologies for the misquote.

TruckinMack fixed it and wrote:

Said the Atheist zealot who thinks his faith is so far superior to everyone else's that their religion should be wiped out. 'Death to the Infidel's religion!' (Interestingly you also wanted Sly banned from Lionbacker. I'll give this to you Atheists, your hypocrisy is consistent.)

_________________Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.

January 29th, 2014, 4:01 pm

njroar

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 2841

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

Quote:

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

So because that order is a belief that there is no all powerful being suddenly makes it different? No, it might not have started as one, but it has become one in itself. Agnostics on the other hand just don't know.. and I can respect that. If I were to fall anywhere, I'd fall more in line with that than atheism. But I'm the stupid one.

I brought up evolution for the very reason you stated at the end. Widely accepted fact. False. It's widely accepted belief. There is no way to replicate anything that happened millions of years ago, so there is no scientific way of proving it. Does that make evolution false? I never said that, I simply said that your faith in the scientific method should have revealed that you know very little about the process you claim is the end-all-be-all of your evidence. Circumstantial evidence in science changes very often and spouting things as fact doesn't change that. Even science knows this and accepts this.

Much like my point that the entire book was a publicity and money scheme because there was nothing in the timeline to disprove either story. That just caused you to get angry about religion in general and start the "so much stupid" as you called it because a simple mention of it makes you flare up. That dogma you cry out about... you seem even more impassioned in your belief.

January 29th, 2014, 4:14 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3039Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Noah's Ark, before Noah...

Sorry, I'm just going to ask one little question and then step out... Because I haven't read ALL of the postings yet.

Why is Atheism fighting so hard against a God they claim doesn't exist? If he doesn't exist, then what are they fighting?

Sorry I asked two. But I'll be back later, time permitting.

_________________2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."